233 replies to this topic

[EgoSlayer]

Hauser, on 12 April 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Do you absolutely have to?

I can understand that 4 assaults and 4 lights against 8 heavies doesn't work well. But matching an 100 tons Atlas against a 80 tons Awesome could use some compensation. Otherwise it will be the heavier mechs from each class that get preferred.

An exact tonnage match would suck, because there isn't enough to a player base to support it since there isn't an equal distribution of players in each chassis.

Class based works and will see variety in mechs, tonnage based wont; I don't want to wait ten minutes to find a match because I may not have chosen the highest weight mech in a class. If it was only tonnages based most players are only going to play the heaviest mech of any Class.

[KableGuy]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

To be honest, "meh". It's fine and all, but to be honest, I don't really want every match to be close. Close is stressful. I game primarily to have fun. To enjoy the game. Enjoyment naturally comes from winning. And I'm used to winning more than losing when it comes to FPS games. So to reduce my winning, as ELO inherently does by giving better than average players tougher than average opponents, will cause me less than a normal level of enjoyment.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not going to whine because I don't get to crush the enemy every round. But it must be pointed out that you are very directly reducing the fun factor of the game for above average players any time they're looking for relaxation and fun rather than competition and stress.

Edited by BitMonger505, 12 April 2013 - 04:39 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Omid Kiarostami, on 12 April 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

To clarify, it'll be similar to the forced Weight Class balancing that we used to have. We're not doing any tonnage based matching at this time.

You need to, otherwise, Flea, Commando, Cicada, Blackjack, Dragon, and Awesome will remain dead on the vine.

Knowing that you are taking a light mech for the class means willingly handicapping. Its not good overall.

[Karr285]

Omid Kiarostami, on 12 April 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

To clarify, it'll be similar to the forced Weight Class balancing that we used to have. We're not doing any tonnage based matching at this time.

Hey look we are back to why bring anything but the largest mech in the weight class again, FullForward backward and onward PGI!

[GRANITO]

So... I know you guys have worked on the matchmaking super hard so you may already be attached to your current model but have you thought about using Kaggle? You basically give them a huge dataset and they have a contest to see who can create the best model to achieve the stated goals. The winner gets the prize money and the company gets an extremely good model to work from. There's some extremely good data analysts on there who could do incredible things. Looking forward to the new changes!

[Yokaiko]

Mishatron, on 12 April 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Is actual tonnage matching something that you could do if you wanted to though? Presumably, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to code if you already have a class-matching system in place.

Its a terribly complicated without a huge number of people in the queue at once.

[KableGuy]

PanzerMagier, on 12 April 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

From player's perspective, I disagree.
http://i.imgur.com/CKI5Zwf.jpg
I get these at least once through every 2 hours of gametime.
Statistics are not facts, they're educated opinions.

anyone else think its funny that he's the only one that died on his team of assault mechs?

[Mystere]

Homeless Bill, on 12 April 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

I'll never get people that think like this. It seems like you want two or three viable builds and primarily 8-0 rolls. How is that fun?

Actually, I am thinking of quite the opposite. In my opinion, when "balance" is carried to it's logical extreme, the end result of everything being "equal" (which some people seem to be asking for):

• equal skills
  
• equal mech weights
  
• equal weapons load outs
  
• equal equipment load outs

is boredom. Variety eventually becomes the casualty.

Also, one of my wishes for MWO, and Community Warfare in particular, is as mentioned previously:

Mystere, on 12 April 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I went to MWO to, among other things, RP an insurrection mounted by a ragtag band of fighters facing a well-trained, highly sophisticated, and heavily armed invading superpower.

Call me twisted if you wish.

Edited by Mystere, 12 April 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Mystere, on 12 April 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Actually, I am thinking of quite the opposite. In my opinion, when "balance" is carried to it's logical extreme, the end result of everything being "equal" (which some people seem to be asking for):

• equal skills
  
• equal mech weights
  
• equal weapons load outs
  
• equal equipment load outs

is boredom. Variety eventually becomes the casualty.

I'll definitely agree that when taken too far, it can make things bland. I'll also admit that my favorite matches of all time have been hopelessly imbalanced against me (whether it's 5v8 or out-tonned 2:1). I'm really hoping they don't nerf the **** out of the Clans because that's where I'm placing my hopes for the asymmetric gameplay I crave.

That said, I think equalizing player skill has vastly improved the quality of my matches. And though I enjoy the underdog rounds, I'll pass on those being the norm.

Your vision of IS vs Clan RP does indeed sound like something I'd be into when I'm feeling masochistic. There's just nothing better than beating the odds or dying in attempt.

[Goose]

As pleased as I am to hear we are getting a fix to Elo (we don't even need to reseed!), all the talk seems to be about this weight matching sctuff.



All the (known) maps, and all the (known) game-play modes have a maneuver element to them: Given reasonably accurate Elos, and a reasonable Elo spread across all players in the match, why couldn't a pile of Spiders win a match against mess of Atli?

All the gentlemen calling for a Team Deathmatch mode won't be happy, but it's not like the amount of maneuver in the game is ever going to change to their liking in any event.

I do wish we'd get a post on how matches are "built" (someone becomes "first," the Elo of singles, or the average of teams, should come in close to the "firstist" players Elo), but I guess there's a "secret sauce" issue invoved, as the success rate of may simudroppers is supposed to be an issue in need of addressing …

[Goose]

FrDrake, on 12 April 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

If an entire set of data is inflated it's still a bell curve.

…

I think you misunderstand the "bell" part of this-here curve …

[Forestal]

INSEkT L0GIC, on 12 April 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Sounds good as long as it does not revert to taking 2-3 hours to find a match before the hotfix widened the ELO matchng to remove the weight filter in the first place to allow for faster matchmaking.

Whaa...at? Are you saying that the MWO community is not growing fast enough? But.... but those match-making problems were closed beta issues, and the quick launch of open beta should have solved them!

But seriously, just step out of PGI's "bubble" and you'll realize all match-making/elo problems WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST if they had developed an open match-making lobby system-- e.g. in Airmech, if high elo players try to start a match without enough high elo players joining, they can 1) change match requirements (like elo/ no. of players/ map, etc), 2) play with/against AI, 3) join other people's matches, 4) chat with other players in the lobby to see what people want to do, etc.

IOW, if you can't solve the match-making issues, develop a system that LETS THE PLAYERS SOLVE THEM.... Of course, the PGI Defense Force will say that players should just play MWO the way PGI wants them to play it-- and then wonder why some people are no longer playing, but merely visiting the forums in hope of seeing some change.

Edited by Forestal, 12 April 2013 - 05:53 PM.

[Hotaru Tomoe]

Please, just lock the game to 3 lights, 3 mediums 3heavy's 3assults for the matches. Then weight matching is done... that's literally all you need to do PGI, there's no need to "on the fly change things."

Dear god, you guys would make changing a lightbulb complicated. JUST LOCK THE WEIGHTCLASSES AT 3-3-3-3... THE WORK IS DONE FOR YOU!

[hammerreborn]

Hotaru Tomoe, on 12 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Please, just lock the game to 3 lights, 3 mediums 3heavy's 3assults for the matches. Then weight matching is done... that's literally all you need to do PGI, there's no need to "on the fly change things."

Dear god, you guys would make changing a lightbulb complicated. JUST LOCK THE WEIGHTCLASSES AT 3-3-3-3... THE WORK IS DONE FOR YOU!

If PGI implemented to it this is the forum:

But what if I have 4 friends that only have D-DCs, ARE YOU SAYING I SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PLAY WITH THEM!!!!!!!

P2W/P2PTogether CAUSE WE NEED TO BUY MORE MECHBAYS TO MEET ARBITRARY MATCHMAKER!!!!


On another note, my data matched roughly with the devs post:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2230698

Edited by hammerreborn, 12 April 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Redoxin]

ohtochooseaname, on 12 April 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

It took 2 months for them to figure out this problem? You know, people would have found it easily if they'd just have published ELO's. They'd see that their score went up too much/etc due to screen shots. We're beta testers: the more information they disclose the more we can debug.

Nah, we can not be trusted with handling such highly precarious information. Who knows what dangerous things we might do with it?
Better hide the most important stat in the game from the players.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

INSEkT L0GIC, on 12 April 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

The more strict the filters the longer it takes to find each matching player as well. No one wants to wait over 30 minutes for it to find a match, or several hours of "no match found" before giving up and playing something else. Most people, especially new players, want to jump into a game right away.

They also tend not to want to be thrown to the wolves in horribly imbalanced matches when they are already handicapped by trial mechs

[White Bear 84]

Ok, but how does this buff machine guns?

[DeaconW]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

To be honest, "meh". It's fine and all, but to be honest, I don't really want every match to be close. Close is stressful. I game primarily to have fun. To enjoy the game. Enjoyment naturally comes from winning. And I'm used to winning more than losing when it comes to FPS games. So to reduce my winning, as ELO inherently does by giving better than average players tougher than average opponents, will cause me less than a normal level of enjoyment.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not going to whine because I don't get to crush the enemy every round. But it must be pointed out that you are very directly reducing the fun factor of the game for above average players any time they're looking for relaxation and fun rather than competition and stress.

This quote should be the example in the dictionary for the word, "Narcissism"...truly unbelievable...as if other players are there just for your personal amusement...Do you listen to yourself? Sheez...

[tenderloving]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

To be honest, "meh". It's fine and all, but to be honest, I don't really want every match to be close. Close is stressful. I game primarily to have fun. To enjoy the game. Enjoyment naturally comes from winning. And I'm used to winning more than losing when it comes to FPS games. So to reduce my winning, as ELO inherently does by giving better than average players tougher than average opponents, will cause me less than a normal level of enjoyment.
It's not a huge deal. I'm not going to whine because I don't get to crush the enemy every round. But it must be pointed out that you are very directly reducing the fun factor of the game for above average players any time they're looking for relaxation and fun rather than competition and stress.

If you really feel this way and aren't trolling, you may want to seek professional counseling because that is some serious sociopathy going on.

Edited by tenderloving, 12 April 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[drinniol]

@ the tonnage match proponents;

Come on guys - you are expecting us to believe that just because the Atlas is 100 tons it's worth 2 50-ton mechs? That nobody will use lower tonnage mechs? Bullcrap. Utter bunk. I just had a game where we had only one assault - which was an Awesome - the other team had 2 or 3 - and we won 8 - 0. Seeing as you guys are offering anecdotal and hypothetical situations as evidence, I can do the same to say that you're all wrong.